Hillary Explained
Several years ago, I began to notice that my switch from liberal to ex-liberal may be rooted in my attraction to smart and powerful women. My wife Carol stands at the top of my list, but when I hear the voices of Heather MacDonald, Linda Halderman, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Jill Stewart, Katy Wright, Lores Rizkalla, (uh oh… it’s a very VERY long list…) it’s impossible to listen to the Paris Hiltons, Barb Streisands, and Sue Sarandons (another very long list) of liberalism.
I’m no saint. When I was younger, I relied on gullible liberated women who longed to prove their “progressive nature” to me. Erica Jong’s axiom that men love for sex and women have sex for love helped me rationalize my sometimes cruel, abusive, or even predatory behavior - which helps me recognize fellow predators. But as I approach the big five-zero, my daydreams and objectives have evolved from the cosmetic pursuit of bottoms and busts to a more satisfying appeal of brains and brawn. I’ve learned that Americans achieve greatness through their deeds, while liberals seek greatness by convincing people to like them. Liberals are the Air America of politics, as real as global warming, as satisfying as tofu at Ruth Chris.
Speaking of strong smart women, Joan Swirsky, who succinctly explained the Pathology of Liberalism, has written an insightful article that explains Hillary Clinton’s pathologies. She describes the classic patterns of the abused wife who shares her husband for twelve years with a woman like Jennifer Flowers:
The victim feels embarrassed, hurt, demeaned, angry, and confronts her abuser. He becomes belligerent, in fact outraged at her nerve in challenging him.
“I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”
She invariably ends up placating his “feelings,” hoping that her capitulation will “make things better.” It does not take a rich imagination to picture this scenario played out dozens if not hundreds of times as the first lady of Arkansas confronted her husband about his serial affairs or questioned his “ethics.”
“As a U.S. senator, she knows better than most people, given her access to national security documents, that Bill Clinton treated America the way he treated her – with utter self-interest and with complete indifference!”
Swirsky also notes that, like many abusive relationships, the abusers friends tend to abandon the victim as well:
Malignant narcissists like Bill and his ilk are unerring in their assessment of the people who fall prey to their charm, manipulation and exploitation. Their victims are the very definition of those who suffer fools gladly because the rewards, mainly access to power, are worth the pain, disappointment, volatile outbursts and fickleness that come with the package.
This explains why so many groveling liberal actors suck up to Hollywood’s narcissists.
Those who fawn over and tolerate narcissists, like Hillary, hang on even after the last dog dies. Why? Because they are afraid of the narcissist’s wrath and fully appreciate his capacity for vindictiveness. And they also know – or at least believe – as the title of the Sandra Bernhard movie said, “Without you, I’m nothing.”
In addition, the quality that defines narcissists best is their insatiable hunger for attention – better known as “the spotlight.”
They consider everyone competition! Even their children … even their wives! And that is why it will not be her brittle, humorless, pontificating, patronizing, shrike-like demeanor or her entrenched liberalism that brings Hillary down. It will be – ruffles and flourishes here – Bill!
Joan Swirsky’s report is worth the read.
—
Clark Baker is a senior contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is an author, filmaker, father and retired LAPD officer. You may read more of his work here and here.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
[...] Original post by reenforce and software by Elliott Back [...]